Posts Tagged ‘SFMTA’

Forget About the Small Type, This SFMTA MUNI Bus Sez, “STOP U.S. AID FOR PALESTINIAN TERRORISM”

Tuesday, March 17th, 2015

Does it not?

7J7C3845 copy

Oh what’s that, Brinkman? MUNI sometimes posts Maya Angelou couplets or whathaveyou to make up for all its “offensive” ads? Oh, well, I suppose that takes care of everything then…

I’m sure that somewhere on this bus is a disclaimer saying how MUNI don’t believe in the ads that people pay it money so that you believe in the ads, but I don’t see that disclaimer here in this shot. What I see is a couple of large slogans plus the large MUNI snake logo.

In fact, to see the disclaimers that FIX EVERYTHING FOR MUNI, you’d need SUPER-VISION.

I’ll tell you, I can see 20-15 (corrected, of course, bifocals, of course) but I am/ I am NOT Superman/ so I can’t see everything.

And neither can you, Gentle Reader…

The Difference Between a Serious Safety Organization Like the NTSB and Our SFMTA – “Toward Zero” vs. “Vision Zero”

Monday, March 16th, 2015

(Remember Gavin Newsom’s Vision from 2004 of Zero homeless people on the Streets of San Francisco by 2014? How did that work out? Oh, there are more now? Oh

So now we have a New Vision Zero – SFGov has banned all transportation-related deaths and injuries in San Francisco starting in 2024 and continuing in perpetuity.

Compare that with our NTSB, which is a serious safety organization. It wants us to move Toward Zero. See?

See the difference? One goal is attainable and the other is pie-in-the-sky from the get-go.

Hey, what’s the SFMTA’s record of turning tax and feepayer money into transportation safety? Not so hot, right? The SFMTA is good at creating more “work rules” for its employees, but it’s not so hot on its actual core functions.

And how is the SFMTA going to change to do better, to “achieve” its impossible to achieve goal?

Nothing. It’s planning on doing the same old same old, a “streetscape” project here and another streetscape project there, political district by political district.

Hey, does the NTSB have politics? Yes, yes it does, unfortunately. But it’s not mired in le politique the way our SFMTA is.

And here’s a bonus – the chances of any particular NTSB worker killing me on the streets of San Francisco are remarkably low. Compare that with the chances of me getting killed by an SFMTA employee are what, 20-30%, you know, assuming I get killed on the streets of San Francisco.

So why not this, SFMTA? Why not take Vision Zero 2024 SF and start with SFGov employees, starting now?

You see, SFMTA, transportation safety isn’t a problem with the lack of “safe” streets, it’s a problem with the behavior of people.

The way you’re trying to do affect the behavior of people is the most convoluted imaginable. Sorry.

Anyway, if you changed your project’s name to Toward Zero, you’d have a chance at success.

If not, then you don’t.

SFGov Puts a Pedestrian “Bulb-Out” at an Intersection Where Peds Already Behave Very Poorly

Friday, March 13th, 2015

I’ll tell you, pedestrian safety means pedestrian safety.

But “pedestrian rights” means the opposite, it means letting peds go around willy-nilly and getting themselves killed.

Anyway, if you want to see peds jumping the green and standing around in intersections, head on over to McAllister and Hyde. Before it was bad enough, but now, peds will have a shorter distance to jaywalk?

P1190613 copy

The last thing you want to do is embolden* the already-emboldened, right?

On It Goes

*BTW, there were peds improperly in the intersection at the time Chris Bucchere collided with Sutchi Hui. Perhaps all the peds in the intersection had jumped the gun. That intersection offers a very short path for peds – in some ways that’s a good thing, but in others that’s a bad thing, particularly at the intersection of 17th, Castro, and Market. Of course, Bucchere couldn’t have “entered the intersection legally” cause the limit there is 25 MPH. And of course, he made no effort to slow down once he recognized the problem. So of course, there’s enough blame to go around.

San Francisco Cabbie Fights Back: “UBER / LYFT, FINALLY JOBS FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS”

Thursday, March 12th, 2015

As seen by Manys here:

jbfcLpV copy

Oh, and here’s another.

I’ll point out that sometimes it’s the unregistered sex offenders…

MUNI Bus Ad Update: Interesting “What Are These Gays Behind?” vs. Uninteresting “What Are These Guys Behind?”

Wednesday, March 11th, 2015

Man, those metal rivets/machine screws holding official SFMTA bus ads to our buses (to say nothing of the turning lights on our robo-chauffeurs) mess up a lot of ads.

Anyway, I read this one as, “What Are These Gays Behind?”

7J7C3536 copy

But IRL it says “What Are These Guys Behind?”

Meh.

Just For The Record, the Reason Why There’s No Old-School Traffic Light at Polk and Fulton is 100% SFGov’s Fault

Tuesday, March 10th, 2015

There are some gray areas in how the SFPD enforces CA’s Failure To Yield Vehicle Code section upon drivers, certainly, but take a look here to see a case of black and white. The white Nissan on the right failed to yield to the ped on the left, smack dab in front of the Main Entrance to City Hall:

7J7C3502 copy

Fundamentally, this is Fulton and Polk, and I’ve always wondered why there wasn’t a traffic light here. Of course City Hall takes up two city blocks and that’s why Fulton disappears here, but wouldn’t the driver compliance rate be orders of magnitude higher with a simple red-amber-green light?

Did I say simple? What I should have said was stupid, because all the SFMTA and the DPW does is “smart,” right? Smart this and smart that. And that means that basic design, the likes of which drivers generally understand the world over, must be stupid, right?

So yeah, that tour bus operator blew though crosswalk and SFGov lost a retiree/contractor and it’s hard to see how the SFPD could write a police report placing the blame upon anyone other than the driver.

But…

But what if the NTSB took a look, what would it say? Would it say, yeah there should have been a light here from the get-go? I think so. I’m saying it would parcel out some of the blame to SFGov, right? As with the pilots of that Asiana flight at SFO, yes, sure, pilot error, of course, but also some blame for SFO operations, some blame for Boeing perhaps as well, and some blame for the SFFD.

But SFGov don’t see things that way. SFGov’s solution is to ban tour bus drivers from yakking to passengers and, oh yeah, let’s put in a non-smart red-amber-green stoplight, but we only have enough money to put in like five traffic lights per year, please give us the SFMTA more money.

So are you “all about safety,” SFMTA? I don’t think so.

Oh what’s that, this is the Great Hall of the People we’re talking about so peds shouldn’t ever have to wait at a red light or at an “upraised hand” signal? Mmmmm…

So really, you all aren’t all about ped safety, you’re about pedestrian rights, right? Like “I’m the NRA, except for pedestrians” or “I’m the NRA, ‘cept for bike riders?”

Here’s a quote:

“…less inviting. Plus pedestrians have to wait at red lights before crossing, slowing down walking. Given that Haight is a commercial corridor the pedestrian environment is key for business.”

None of this “advocacy” against what’s altogether a quite-sensible plan for Haight Street from the SFMTA has anything to do with safety, with keeping peds safe from others but also safe from themselves.

Oh what’s that, you want to cite safety as your goal, but you actually have quite different goals? OK fine.

Our SFMTA, Which Wants All Cars Off of Eastern Market, Will Impose a Brace of Turn Restrictions in 3 Months – “Safer Market Street”

Friday, March 6th, 2015

IDK, if you asked me what would make a safer Market Street, I’d say, “Well, how about banning all them buses and taxis?” Oh, that’s not practical, huh?

But it would leave us with a safer Market Street though.

The actual SMS plan, I’m not so sure about:

Capturekjkkg

Anyway, this would seem to slightly improve your north-south flow across Market, but the SFMTA isn’t a mental health agency so there are some issues it’s not equipped to handle…

Wild Wild West: What Happens When the Traffic Signals at Sloat and Great Highway Start Flashing Red

Friday, March 6th, 2015

This was the  the cause of a lot of the problems the other day – the light at Sloat and Great Highway flashing red. So traffic backed up into Lake Merced:

7J7C3445 copy

In most towns, the cops would care about something like this, but in SF it’s up to the SFMTA to care, and it doesn’t really care, so bike riders heading north didn’t know where to go – they went all over, on the sand, on vegetation, on the sidewalks. and lane-splitting was an option as well:

7J7C3446 copy

These guys heading south had to pick up their road bikes and carry them for a while after being forced into the sand:

7J7C3443 copy

Speaking of which, this MUNI bus looked abandoned in the dunes. I think operators park them here to allow car drivers to use the traffic circle to get back to the intersection, cause, you know, its wheels are to big to get caught in a little sand, right? Well…

7J7C3397 copy

…this ride here got totally stuck in a just a little sand. It was sad. (Photos altered to protect the embarrassed.) Help seemed to be far far away as cars behind got blocked in the circle:

7J7C3393 copy

Do you need to hang a left to get a nice free parking space? Sure, what’s a few lanes of stalled traffic?

7J7C3442 copy

And then there’s just your normal Great Highway, with horrible pedestrians in between crosswalks…

7J7C3453 copy

…and improperly in crosswalks:

7J7C3390 copy

And there’s the sand again, always the sand:

7J7C3392 copy

Or no sand  – I’ll tell you, I wouldn’t dream of ever being on this side of the line, but perhaps that’s a quarter century of SF County living talking, IDK. So really, you don’t want to use that bike lane up there, or that other one to the right of you, huh? OK

7J7C3449 copy

And the live aboard RVs – they’ll get hidden away come nighttime of course.

7J7C3459 copy

That’s life out west, where every day is Do What You Feel Day.

SPUR, the Urban Renewal people, have a plan to “renew” this area. IDK, they’ve had a pretty bad record over the years and decades, right? And they seem to love SFGov’s current Willie Brown orientation.

Anyway, they have a roadshow to sell  people on their ideas. You should check it out sometime to see the promised Bright New Future, the promised New Gold Dream.

Rewriting a MUNI Bus Ad: Why “BIG SODA, STOP TARGETING ME” Sounds Weak

Wednesday, March 4th, 2015

It should be “BIG SODA, STOP TARGETING _US_,” right?

7J7C3396 copy

I mean, right?

And what regular kid uses a “framing” term like “BIG SODA?” (Except, you know, kids funded with money from BIG GOVERNMENT, right?)

I mean, throw me a bone here, people!

It’s like saying, BIG SODA, EMPOWER ME. It’s weak weak weak is what I’m saying.

I’ll expect to see this edit on the road in two weeks.

Make It So.

Oh My: Rob Anderson and Mary Miles Take Aim at the SFMTA’s Plans for Polk Street

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

This was the team that tied SFGov up in knots with an injunction for four long years.

They’re ba-aack:

FROM:
Mary Miles (SB #230395)
Attorney at Law
for Coalition for Adequate Review
San Francisco, CA 94102
TO:
Edward Reiskin, Director
Roberta Boomer, Board Secretary
and Members of the Board of Directors of the Municipal Transportation Agency
#1 South Van Ness Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
DATE: March 3, 2015
PUBLIC COMMENT, MTA BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2015, AGENDA ITEM 12 (“Polk Streetscape Project”)
This is Public Comment on Agenda Item 12, the “Polk Streetscape Project” (“Polk Project” or “the Project”), on the MTA Board’s March 3, 2015 Agenda. Under the Brown Act and CEQA, you are legally obligated to accept and consider this Comment and to place it in all public files on the Project. Therefore, please assure that this Comment has been distributed to all members of the MTA Board and placed in all applicable files on the Project.
The “categorical exemptions” invoked do not apply to the Project, and therefore you may not lawfully approve the Project or any part of it as proposed, since such approval will violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code §§21000 et seq.)
The Project proposes to reduce traffic and turning capacity on Polk and other Streets by eliminating existing parking lanes, reducing traffic lanes and installing obstructions to traffic flow and turning on this busy commercial corridor.
The unusual and highly inconvenient scheduling of this hearing before the MTA Board after 3:00 p.m., on a day with an extraordinarily long MTA Board Agenda shows the MTA Board’s contempt for the public and the significant impacts of the Project. The hearing should be continued to a date and time when the public can be heard without waiting hours for hearings on unrelated matters, and where the public’s comments will receive the Board’s full and serious attention. The hearing precludes public attendance by many people, including all those people who have to be at work. Combined with the short notice, that scheduling deprives the public of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the environmental review and administrative proceedings on the Project.
On January 15, 2015, the San Francisco Planning Department issued a “Certificate of Determination of Exemption from Environmental Review” (“Exemption”) claiming that the Project was categorically exempt under Classes 1, 2, and 4 of CEQA, invoking 14 Cal. Code Regs. [“Guidelines”] §§ 15301, 15302, and 15304. None of those categorical exemptions apply to this Project. Further, the significant cumulative impacts on traffic, transit, parking, loading, and air quality caused by the Van Ness BRT project one block away, and by the CPMC Project at Van Ness Avenue at Geary Boulevard, make the Polk Project not categorically exempt. (Guidelines §15300.2) Both of those Projects also present “unusual circumstances” precluding categorical exemption of the Polk Project.
1. The Polk Project Does Not Fit Within The Categorical Exemptions Invoked…